I think we must remember that we are talking to Programmers. I think a
programmer already studied enough to perceive that the output of a code
can vary from the one shown in the example, so, there is no need to
separate *exact* output and *possible* output.
(Errr... I think that "possible" is n
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> > The above code will output like:'>
>
> This is not English IMHO.
"The above code will output:"
I see no need for the preposition.
Ken
I'm all for the two entities.
Having a strict output (example.outputs) and a flexible one
(example.outputs.similar) will also allow us to run tests on the strict
example to see if the output is accurate.
Well, I have not thought of tests before... Good idea!
Goba
I'm all for the two entities.
Having a strict output (example.outputs) and a flexible one
(example.outputs.similar) will also allow us to run tests on the strict
example to see if the output is accurate.
didou
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
I think this could be better:
The above code will output
like:'>
I think this could be better:
The above code will output
like:'>
This is not English IMHO.
would "the code mentioned above's output will appear like:" be better? ;)
Simple:
"Execunting the code above you will get:"
Could you please first elaborate on what is the problem with the current
wording u
M. Sokolewicz wrote:
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
I think this could be better:
The above code will output
like:'>
This is not English IMHO.
Goba
would "the code mentioned above's output will appear like:" be better? ;)
- Tul
Simple:
"Execunting the code above you will get:"
Davi
I think this could be better:
The above code will output
like:'>
This is not English IMHO.
would "the code mentioned above's output will appear like:" be better? ;)
Although I am not a native English speaker, I have not seen using 's on
multiple words this way before, so I consider your suggestio
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
I think this could be better:
The above code will output like:'>
This is not English IMHO.
Goba
would "the code mentioned above's output will appear like:" be better? ;)
- Tul
I think this could be better:
The above code will output like:'>
This is not English IMHO.
Goba
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
The above example(s) will output:'>
No please. I don't like (s).
Yup, we should treat those one by hand :)
(s) is horrible!
What about:
The above will output:'>
Or, putting the (will be/similar to) together in a more general form:
The above output will be (at least
similar
> >The above example(s) will output:'>
>
> No please. I don't like (s).
> >>>
> >>>Yup, we should treat those one by hand :)
> >>
> >>(s) is horrible!
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > The above will output:'>
> >
> > Or, putting the (will be/similar to) together in a more general form:
>
The above example(s) will output:'>
No please. I don't like (s).
Yup, we should treat those one by hand :)
(s) is horrible!
What about:
The above will output:'>
Or, putting the (will be/similar to) together in a more general form:
The above output will be (at least similar
to):'>
No good. There are
> >>
> >>> The above example(s) will output:'>
> >>
> >> No please. I don't like (s).
> >
> > Yup, we should treat those one by hand :)
>
> (s) is horrible!
>
> Goba
What about:
The above will output:'>
Or, putting the (will be/similar to) together in a more general form:
The above output wil
May be it would be nice to add an (s) alter example, see example(s), for
instance in the case of mysqli examples in which is there 2 example
codes
one for procedural use and another for object oriented, so it could be:
The above example(s) will output:'>
No please. I don't like (s).
Yup, we shoul
Jakub Vrana wrote:
Enrique GB wrote:
May be it would be nice to add an (s) alter example, see example(s), for
instance in the case of mysqli examples in which is there 2 example codes
one for procedural use and another for object oriented, so it could be:
The above example(s) will output:'>
..
No
Enrique GB wrote:
> May be it would be nice to add an (s) alter example, see example(s), for
> instance in the case of mysqli examples in which is there 2 example codes
> one for procedural use and another for object oriented, so it could be:
> The above example(s) will output:'>
> ..
No please.
> Heilig Szabolcs wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >
> >>This will output:'>
> >>This will output something
> similar
> >>to:'>
> >
> >
> > The third variant:
> > The above example will
> > output:'>
> >
> > I think there are some more variants... I think that step can
> > standardize that sentence a bit, so:
Heilig Szabolcs wrote:
Hi!
This will output:'>
This will output something similar
to:'>
The third variant:
The above example will
output:'>
I think there are some more variants... I think that step can
standardize that sentence a bit, so:
"This will output:" == "The above example will output:"
I
Hi!
> This will output:'>
> This will output something similar
> to:'>
The third variant:
The above example will
output:'>
I think there are some more variants... I think that step can
standardize that sentence a bit, so:
"This will output:" == "The above example will output:"
Cece
+1
Ken Tossell
Hi,
I really think we should have entities to handle this type of
redundant statement in the manual.
The french translation already use this entity :
This will output:'>
And Dave suggested adding this one :
This will output something
similar to:'>
What do you guys think about adding this to langu
Hi all,
I really think we should have entities to handle this type of
redundant statement in the manual.
The french translation already use this entity :
This will output:'>
And Dave suggested adding this one :
This will output something similar
to:'>
What do you guys think about adding this to l
22 matches
Mail list logo
